`
`1
`
`2
`
`Jason W. Wolff(SBN 215819), wolff@fr.com
`Joanna M. Fuller (SBN 266406), jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3 12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070/ Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.,
`7 HUAWEI DEVICE (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUA WEI DEVICE USA, INC.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`[ Additional Counsel listed on signature page.}
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`10
`
`11
`
`14
`
`12
`13 BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-01783-CAB-BLM
`[LEAD CASE}
`
`DEFENDANTS' JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`June 19-20, 2019
`9:00 a.m.
`4C
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivenga
`
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS' JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`June 19-20, 2019
`Date:
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivenga
`
`15
`
`16 V .
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`17 COO LP AD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`18 AND YULONG COMPUTER
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`19
`
`20
`
`Defendants.
`
`21 BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`22 LLC,
`23
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`24 V .
`25 HUA WEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`26 CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUA WEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Cai e 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1281 Page 2 of 63
`
`1 BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-01785-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS' JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`4 V.
`5 KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`6 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`June 19-20, 201 9
`9:00 a.m.
`4C
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivenga
`
`7
`
`Defendants.
`
`8
`9 BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12 V.
`
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-01 786-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DEFENDANTS' JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`June 19-20, 2019
`9:00 a.m.
`4C
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivenga
`
`13 ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA)
`INC., ZTE (TX) INC.,
`14
`
`Defendants.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Ca 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1282 Page 3 of 63
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................... .. .. .. ..................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................... 1
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,319,889 AND 8,204,554 .......................... .. .................... 1
`Technology Background .. .. .. ......................... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .................... 1
`A .
`"a signal indicative of proximity of an external object" / "a signal
`B.
`indicative of the existence of a first condition, the first condition being
`that an external object is proximate" .. .. ......... .. .............. .. .. .. .................... 2
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,990,842 .. .......................................................................... 4
`A.
`Technology Background .. .. .. ......................... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .................... 4
`B.
`"Inverse Fourier Transformer" ....... .. ..................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................... 5
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,957,450 .. .......................................................................... 9
`A.
`Technology Background .. .. .. ......................... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .................... 9
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ("POSIT A") ... .. ......... .. .................. 11
`"channel estimate matrices" / "matrix based on the plurality of channel
`C .
`estimates" / "matrix based on said plurality of channel estimates" ...... 12
`"coefficients derived from performing a singular value matrix
`decomposition (SVD)" .. .. .. ................. .. .. .. ............................................. 17
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,416,862 ... ................. .. ..................................................... 19
`Technology Background .. .. .. ......................... .. .. .. .................................. 19
`A .
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ("POSIT A") ... .. ......... .. .................. 20
`"decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`to produce the tran smitter beamforming information" ..... .. .................. 20
`VI. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,941 ,156 .. ........................................................................ 24
`Technology Background .. .. .. ......................... .. .. .. .................................. 24
`A .
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ("POSIT A") ... .. ......... .. .................. 24
`"simultaneous communication paths from said multimode cell phone"
`(cl. 1) ..................................... .. .. .. .. .. ...................................................... 25
`"a module to establish simultaneous communication paths from said
`multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said
`RF communication functionality" (cl. 1) .................. .. .. .. ...................... 34
`This Term Is Subject to§ 112 ~ 6 (Means-Plus-Function) ... ..... 34
`1.
`Corresponding Function and Structure ....................................... 3 7
`
`D .
`
`B.
`C .
`
`B.
`
`C .
`
`D .
`
`2.
`
`1
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Ca 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1283 Page 4 of 63
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 VII.
`
`VIII.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`E.
`
`"an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said
`cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality,
`operable to switch a communication path established on one of said cell
`phone functionality and said RF communication functionality, with
`another communication path later established on the other of said cell
`phone functionality and said RF communication functionality" ( cl. 1 )41
`1.
`This Term Is Subject to§ 112 ~ 6 (Means-Plus-Function) ... .... .41
`2.
`Corresponding Function and Structure ....................................... 43
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,039,435 ... ................. .. .. .. ............................................. 46
`A.
`Technology Background .. .. .. ......................... .. .. .. .................................. 46
`B.
`"position to a communications tower" .................................................. 47
`CONCLUSION .............. .. .. .. ......................... .. .............................................. 51
`
`..
`11
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1284 Page 5 of 63
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Aoyama,
`656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ... .. .. ................. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................. 38
`
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ... ......................................................................... 16
`
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb Weston, Inc. ,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ... .. .. ................. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................. 50
`
`10 Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng 'g Corp.,
`216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ... ........................................................................ .47
`
`11
`12 Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P 'ship,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ... .. .. ................. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................. 31
`
`13
`14 GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ... .. .. ................. .. .. .. ......................... .. .. .. ........... 1, 48
`15
`
`16
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. ,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ... .. .. ..................... .. .......... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................. 15
`
`17
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. ,
`18
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane) ......... .. ....................................................... 7
`19 Phillips v. A WH Corp.,
`20
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ... ......................................................... 1, 18, 26, 47
`
`21 Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co. ,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ........... .. .. .. ..................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .............. 31
`
`22
`
`Tech. Props. Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd. ,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ... .. .. ................. .. .................................................. 31
`
`Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp.,
`418 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................. 14
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm 't Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ... .. .. ........................................................... 8, 47, 48
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`lll
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1285 Page 6 of 63
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Tomita Techs. USA, LLC v. Nintendo Co. ,
`681 F. App'x 967 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............ .. ................................................... 41 , 46
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ... .... ................... .... ........ .... .... .... .... .... .......... .passim
`
`WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int 'l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ... .. .. ....................... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................. 38
`
`IV
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Ca 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1286 Page 7 of 63
`
`1
`
`2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff BNR sued the Defendants (Coolpad, Huawei, Kyocera, and ZTE),
`
`3 alleging certain cell phones and tablets infringe its patents. The patents purport to
`
`4
`
`5
`
`relate to wireless communications, as well as power management techniques (e.g. ,
`
`the use of proximity sensors). BNR has asserted eight patents against Huawei and
`
`6 ZTE, and a subset of these against Kyocera (six patents) and Coolpad (four patents).
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Defendants' proposed constructions, as reflected below , properly begin with
`
`the plain meaning of terms informed by the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. A WH
`
`9 Corp., 41 5 F.3d 1303, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Defendants propose a usage
`
`10 consistent with and supported by the specifications, id. at 1316, absent a clear
`
`11 disclaimer, GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed.
`
`12 Cir. 2014). BNR, however, proposes constructions to impermissibly broaden or
`
`13
`
`rewrite its claims. For these reasons, Defendants' proposals should be adopted.
`
`14
`
`II.
`
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,319,889 AND 8,204,554
`A.
`
`Technology Background
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`The ' 889 and ' 554 patents ("the Goris patents") share a common
`
`specification. 1 They pertain to a mobile station (e.g. , a cordless or cellular
`
`telephone) that includes "a proximity sensor ... adapted to cause [the] power
`
`19 consumption of the display to be reduced when the display is within a
`
`20 predetermined range of an external object." '889 (Doc. No. 1-3) 2 at Abstract, 1 :21-
`
`21 26, 1:42-46; see also id. at 3:13-1 5, 3:20-32. Their common specification teaches
`
`22
`
`that, during a telephone call, the display "is not needed" when "the display [is] near
`
`23
`
`to an object, in particular to the ear" of a user. See id. at 1:47-51, 1:55-58, 1:62-2 :1 ,
`
`24 2: 18-24, 3: 12-39, 3 :55-58. The patents disclose activating a proximity sensor during
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1 Because the Goris patent specifications are the same, for simplicity, citations are
`provided only for the earlier-issued ' 889 patent.
`2 Doc. Nos. referenced herein refer to BNR v. Huawei, 3: l 8-cv-1 784 unless
`otherwise noted.
`
`1
`Case N o. 3: 18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Cai e 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1287 Page 8 of 63
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`incoming and outgoing calls. Id. at Abstract, 3:7-1 5, 3:33-35, 3:48-55, Figs. 3, 4 .
`
`The proximity sensor detects whether an external object is "within a predetermined
`
`range." See id. at Abstract, 1:43-46, 3: 13-15, 3:20-25, 3:33-39, 3:55-58. When the
`
`proximity sensor detects an external object within the predetermined range, "the
`
`power consumption of the display 150 is reduced, most preferably by switching the
`
`display 150 completely off." See id. at Abstract, 1:43-46, 1:55-58, 1:62-64, 2:18-24,
`
`3:20-25, 3:35-39, 3:55-58, Fig. 3. When the external object moves out of range
`
`(e.g. , when the user moves the phone away from his or her ear), the proximity
`
`sensor detects that event as well, and the "the display 150 is switched back on." Id.
`
`10
`
`at 2:6-9, 3:26-32.
`
`"a signal indicative of proximity of an external object" / "a signal
`B.
`indicative of the existence of a first condition, the first condition being
`that an external object is proximate"3
`
`Defendants' Construction
`
`BNR's Construction
`
`"a signal that an external object is or is
`not within a predetermined range"
`
`"a signal that an external object is
`within a predetermined range"
`
`Claim 1 of the ' 889 patent recites "a proximity sensor adapted to generate a
`
`signal indicative of proximity of an external object." Claims I and 14 of the ' 554
`
`patent recite "a proximity sensor adapted to generate a signal indicative of the
`
`existence of a first condition, the first condition being than an external object is
`
`proximate." Through their continuing negotiations, the parties have narrowed this
`
`dispute to a single issue: must the signal generated by the proximity sensor be
`
`capable of indicating only that an external object is within a predetermined range ( as
`
`BNR contends) or must that signal also be capable of indicating that an external
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`3 The parties have agreed to a construction of "the signal is that an external object is
`26
`27 within a predetermined range" for the phrase "the signal indicates the proximity of
`the external object," and they will file a Supplemental Joint Hearing Statement
`reflecting this agreement.
`
`28
`
`2
`Case N o. 3: 18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Ca 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1288 Page 9 of 63
`
`1 object is no longer ( or is not) within the predetermined range as well ( as Defendants
`
`2 contend).
`
`3
`
`The claims of the Goris patents demonstrate that Defendants' construction is
`
`4 correct. For example, claim 1 of the '889 patent requires the proximity sensor to
`
`5
`
`"detect[] whether an external object is proximate" to the display. Id. at 4:21-22.
`
`6 The use of "whether" indicates alternatives, i.e., the sensor either determines that an
`
`7 external object is proximate or it determines that the external object is not
`
`8 proximate. As further recited in claim 1, the proximity sensor is "adapted to
`
`9 generate a signal indicative of proximity of an external object" based on its
`
`10 determination of "whether an external object is proximate." See id. at 4:5-6, 4:21-
`
`11 22. The proximity sensor's signal must be capable of indicating the two
`
`12 alternatives, thus, the claimed signal is "a signal that an external object is or is not
`
`13 within a predetermined range."
`
`14
`
`Sometimes, that signal will state "yes, the external object is proximate." See
`
`15
`
`supra n.3. But other times, the claimed signal must be able to state "no, the external
`
`16 object is not proximate." For example, claims 2 and 9 of the '554 patent explicitly
`
`1 7 confirm that the claimed signal must have the "is not proximate" state. Claim 2
`recites "increasing power to the display if the signal from the activated proximity
`sensor indicates that the first condition no longer exists." '5 54 (Doc No. 1-4) at
`
`19
`
`18
`
`20 4:24-26 ( emphasis added). The "first condition no longer exists" if an external
`
`object is not proximate. See id. at 4:4-6. Claim 9 similarly claims "increasing
`21
`22 power consumption of the display if the signal from the activated proximity sensor
`indicates that the proximity condition no longer exists." Id. at 4: 62-64 ( emphasis
`23
`
`24 added). In other words, both of these claims expressly require the signal generated
`
`25 by the proximity sensor also be capable of indicating that the external object is not
`
`26 proximate (and then more power will go to the display of the mobile station). By
`
`27
`
`28
`
`3
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Cas 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1289 Page 10 of 63
`
`1 excluding the "or is not" state of the claimed signal, BNR 's proposed construction
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`contradicts this explicit claim language.
`
`The Goris patents' common specification further supports Defendants'
`
`construction. The specification discloses two actions depending on what the
`
`5 proximity sensor detects. First, " [i]f the proximity sensor 140 detects an external
`
`6 object (such as the user's ear) within the monitored range, the power consumption of
`
`7
`
`the display 150 is reduced." '889 at Abstract, 1:41-46, 1:55-58, 1:62-64, 2: 18-24,
`
`8 3:20-25, 3:35-39, 3:55-58, Fig. 3. Second, in response to the external object
`
`9
`
`"mov[ ing] out of range" of the proximity sensor, "the display 150 is switched back
`
`10 on." Id. at 3:26-32; see also id. at 2 :6-9. Figures 3 and 4 are flow diagrams that
`
`11
`
`show (at 304 and 404) the determination made by the proximity sensor. Id. at 2:49-
`
`12 52, Figs. 3, 4. The proximity sensor determines whether an external object is
`
`13 proximate. The result is either "yes" or "no." Id. Only Defendants' proposed
`
`14 construction is consistent with the claims and specification.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,990,842
`A.
`
`Technology Background
`
`The '842 patent relates to how data is encoded for transmission from a
`
`18 wireless device. An encoding technique helps put the data in a format that can be
`
`19
`
`transmitted and then, later, decoded by the receiver essentially using an inverse of
`
`20
`
`the encoding technique. A s background, the '842 patent states that "both the
`
`21 802 .11 a and 802 .11 g standards use an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
`
`22
`
`(OFDM) encoding schem e." '842 (Doc No. 1-5) at 2 :8-1 0.4 " OFDM works by
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`4 The "802. 11" standards are a set of communication protocols promulgated by the
`Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers ("IEEE"). "802" refers to IEEE
`802 local area network ("LAN") protocol standards, while "802.11 " are a subset of
`26 802 standards that specify two layers of the network protocol "stack"-the media
`27 access layer ("MAC") and the physical access layer ("PHY")-for implem enting
`wireless local area networks ("WLAN") WiFi communications in certain
`28
`
`4
`Case N o. 3: 18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Cas 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1290 Page 11 of 63
`
`1
`
`2
`
`spreading a single data stream over a band of sub-carriers, each of which is
`
`transmitted in parallel." Id. at 2: 12-14. "In 802. l la/802.1 lg, each data packet starts
`
`3 with a preamble which includes a short training sequence followed by a long
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`training sequence. The short and long training sequences are used for
`
`synchronization between the sender and the receiver." Id. at 2:30-34. These
`
`training sequences use a form of modulation known as Binary Phase Shift Keying or
`
`7 BPSK, in which a+ 1 maps to transmitting the sub-carrier with a 0-degree phase
`
`8
`
`9
`
`shift and a -1 maps to transmitting the subcarrier with a 180-degree phase shift. The
`
`'842 patent purports to address a "need to create a long training sequence of
`
`10 minimum peak-to-average ratio [('PAPR')] that uses more sub-carriers without
`
`11
`
`interfering with adjacent channels." Id. at 2:36-38. According to the patent, its
`
`12 approach "decreases power back-off' and "should be usable by legacy devices in
`
`13 order to estimate channel impulse response and to estimate carrier frequency offset
`
`14 between a transmitter and a receiver." Id. at 2:41-43, 4:4-6.
`B.
`
`"Inverse Fourier Transformer"
`
`15
`
`Defendants' Construction
`
`BNR's Construction
`
`"a circuit and/or software that performs a
`defined mathematical function that
`transforms a series of values from the
`frequency domain into the time domain"
`
`"Plain and ordinary meaning,
`alternatively to the extent the Court
`determines that a specific
`construction is warranted: circuit
`and/or software that at least performs
`an inverse Fourier transform. "
`
`The parties agree that an Inverse Fourier Transformer can be a circuit and/or
`
`software. Otherwise, Defendants seek to construe the Inverse Fourier Transformer
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`communication frequency bands (e.g. , 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 60 GHz). Often,
`26 products purporting to comply with aspects of the 802.11 standard are branded as
`27 "Wi-Fi" products. Amendments and improvements to the base standards get
`additional letter designations, such as 802.1 la or 802.11 b. See, e.g.,
`28 http://www.ieee802.org/1 l.
`
`5
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Cas 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1291 Page 12 of 63
`
`1 consistent with the '842 patent's claims and specification, while BNR seeks a non-
`
`2 construction.
`
`3
`
`Only Defendants' proposed construction accurately captures what the Inverse
`
`4 Fourier Transformer does with the "extended long training sequence," as recited in
`
`5
`
`the claims. Independent claim 1 recites "a signal generator that generates an
`
`6 extended long training sequence." '842 at cl. 1. "[T]he Inverse Fourier Transformer
`
`7 processes the extended long training sequence from the signal generator and
`
`8 provides an optimal extended long training sequence." Id. Thus, the Inverse
`
`9 Fourier Transformer converts the BPSK modulated sub-carriers (a sequence defined
`
`10
`
`in the frequency domain) into an "optimal extended long training sequence" (a
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`sequence defined in the time domain).
`
`The specification describes the operation of an "Inverse Fourier Transform"
`
`in accordance with Defendants' proposal: "[ s ]ignal generating circuit 205 generates
`
`14
`
`the expanded long training sequence and if 56 active sub-carriers are being used,
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`signal generating circuit generates . .. and stores the expanded long training
`
`sequence in sub-carriers -28 to +28 .. . . The inventive long training sequence is
`
`inputted into an Inverse Fourier Transform 206." Id. at 4:41-52 (emphasis added).
`
`18 Figure 2, reproduced below, has the Inverse Fourier Transform 206 outlined in red.
`
`--r-1 ......
`
`-u
`
`-
`
`_,,
`.,,
`
`-~
`-
`-~•...
`
`.;&
`
`I
`I
`
`Ii-Q
`
`2
`0
`2
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`I
`
`-l ~
`
`I-~.,_.,., -·
`
`- - - -
`
`~·
`-·
`
`_,, w.
`
`' I
`I
`I
`
`'1
`
`212
`·1
`
`11
`I
`
`212 I
`
`, I
`12
`lo
`
`4
`
`2
`0
`5
`
`206
`
`208
`
`►, 210
`
`Figure 2
`
`6
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Cas 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1292 Page 13 of 63
`
`1
`
`The specification further confirms that the output of block 206, "the Inverse
`
`2 Fourier Transform," which is an input to block 208, is a time domain signal:
`
`3
`
`4
`
`"[ s ]erial to parallel module 208 converts the serial time domain signals into parallel
`
`time domain signals that are subsequently filtered and converted to analog signals
`
`5 via the DIA [(digital-to-analog converter)]." Id. at 4:61-64 (emphasis added). The
`
`6
`
`specification teaches that a frequency domain signal is the input to the Inverse
`
`7 Fourier Transform, and the resultant output signal is a time domain signal, precisely
`
`8 as described in Defendants' construction . The creation of parallel time domain
`
`9
`
`streams is necessary to transmit the signal on multiple antennas via independent
`
`10 digital to analog converters, as described above.
`
`11
`
`Both of BNR's proposals are flawed. First, BN R's proposal that Inverse
`
`12 Fourier Transformer be given its plain and ordinary meaning does not help the jury,
`
`13 nor the Court, understand what this highly technical term would mean to person of
`
`14 ordinary skill in the art. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976
`
`15
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane). Second, BNR 's alternate proposal is effectively a non-
`
`16 construction wherein BNR simply parrots back the language of the claim and does
`
`17 not explain the highly technical term "Inverse Fourier Transformer."
`
`18
`
`Defendants do not dispute that a Fourier transform can operate in more than
`
`19 one dimension. But BNR ' s assertions that "Defendants' proposed construction
`
`20
`
`erroneously restricts the inverse Fourier Transform to time and frequency domains"
`
`21 and "there is no specific direction for the transform required by the claims" are
`
`22
`
`incorrect and contradict the intrinsic evidence. See, e.g. , Ex . A (Madisetti Op.
`
`23 Deel.) at ,-i 192. 5 First, "[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`5 Pursuant to the Court's Consolidation Order dated February 2, 201 9 and direction
`to the parties during the April 26, 201 9 Claim Construction Status Hearing,
`Defendants are filing consolidated Claim Construction and Indefiniteness Briefs.
`Doc. No. 60 at 3; Ex . B (Apr. 26, 201 9 Status Hr' g Tr.) at 9:9-10:9. Given BNR 's
`use of Dr. Madisetti' s opinions in a manner directly adverse to ZTE, ZTE must
`
`7
`Case N o. 3: 18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Cas 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1293 Page 14 of 63
`
`1 customary meanings as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read
`
`2
`
`in the context of the specification and prosecution history." Thorner v. Sony
`
`3 Comput. Entm 't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 201 2). Nowhere does the
`
`4
`
`5
`
`specification mention an Inverse Fourier Transformer operating on anything other
`
`than a one-dimensional signal. Nowhere does the specification disclose the Inverse
`
`6 Fourier Transformer operating on a space or spatial signal, or any other variable
`
`7 other than time or frequency.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Second, the Inverse Fourier Transformer has a specified direction. The
`
`specification teaches that the "FFT [(fast Fourier transform)] module 36 converts
`
`10
`
`the serial time domain signals into frequency domain signals." '842 at 5:8-9
`
`11
`
`(emphasis added). The specification also teaches that the "Inverse Fourier
`
`12 Transform 206 may be an inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT)." Id. at 4:53-55
`
`13
`
`( emphasis added). If there were no specified direction, there would be no need for
`
`14 an inverse transform.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Defendants' proposal clarifies that in the context of the claims and the
`
`specification, a wireless communications system using Orthogonal Frequency
`
`17 Domain Multiplexing (OFDM), that the Inverse Fourier Transformer maps the
`
`18
`
`frequency domain sub-carriers into a time domain representation as defined by the
`
`19 mathematical function of an inverse Fourier Transform. "OFDM is a frequency
`
`20 division multiplexing modulation technique for transmitting large amounts of digital
`
`21 data over a radio wave. OFDM works by spreading a single data stream over a band
`
`22 of sub-carriers, each of which is transmitted in parallel." Id. at 2:10-14. The very
`
`23 nature of OFDM, as described by the specification, is to start with a frequency
`
`24 domain signal and distribute the data to be transmitted over a band of sub-carriers in
`
`25
`
`the frequency domain, each of which is transmitted in parallel via the Inverse
`
`26
`27 address BNR' s positions in this consolidated brief However, ZTE maintains and
`does not waive its objections to BNR ' s use of Dr. Madisetti for the reasons cited in
`its Motion to Strike dated May 8, 201 9. BNR v. ZTE, 3: 18-cv-1 786, Doc. No. 84.
`8
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`28
`
`
`
`Cas 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1294 Page 15 of 63
`
`1 Fourier Transformer converting the frequency domain signal to its corresponding
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`time domain representation.
`
`For these reasons, Defendants' construction should be adopted.
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,957,450
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background
`
`The '450 patent relates to antenna "beamforming" in wireless communication
`
`systems. Beamforming is like shining a beam of light at an intended area. In
`
`8 contrast to antennas which transmit a radio frequency ("RF") signal in all directions,
`
`9 beamforming is a technique using multiple antennas to focus an RF signal ( a
`
`10 "beam") toward the intended receiver. Ex. C (Min Op. Deel.) at ,-i 41. As a result, a
`
`11
`
`stronger signal is available to the intended receiver. ' 450 (Doc. No. 33-6) at 1:37-
`
`12 41 ; 3:8-14.
`
`13
`
`In general terms, beamforming requires coordinating the arrival of the
`
`14
`
`transmitted signals at the receiving device. To implement this technique, the
`
`15
`
`transmitting device mathematically modifies the signals to be transmitted by each
`
`16 antenna using a beamforming "matrix."6 Importantly, to construct an appropriate
`
`1 7 beamforming matrix, the transmitting device must obtain information about the
`
`18 characteristics of the RF channel to the receiving device. The claims of the ' 450
`
`19 patent are directed to "feedback information" sent by the receiving device back to
`
`20
`
`the transmitting device to help the transmitting device construct an appropriate
`
`21 beamforming matrix.
`
`22
`
`This concept is illustrated in Figure 2 below, which depicts a "transmitting
`
`23 mobile terminal 202," a "receiving mobile terminal 222," and "RF channels 242."
`
`24
`
`Id . at 11 :32-36. To focus a beam, the transmitting mobile terminal modifies the
`
`25
`
`source signals 206, 208, 210 based on beamforming matrix V 204 before they are
`
`26
`
`27
`
`6 A "matrix" is a two-dimensional array of values. An example of a 2x2 matrix,
`
`28 which is a matrix that includes two rows and two columns, is: [! !] .
`
`9
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Cas 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1295 Page 16 of 63
`
`1
`
`transmitted from antennas 212, 214, 216. Id. at 11:41-54. The characteristics of RF
`
`2 channels 242 through which the signals are transmitted may be represented
`
`3 mathematically by a matrix, H, which is another two-dimensional array of values.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Id . at 11:61-65. The receiving mobile terminal includes antennas 232, 234, and 236
`
`to receive the signals transmitted through the RF channels 242. Id . at 11:55-59.
`
`202
`
`204
`
`222
`
`224
`
`U*
`
`226
`
`228
`
`2:,0
`
`'450 at Fig. 2.
`
`To construct an appropriate beamforming matrix V, the transmitting mobile
`
`terminal must take into account the characteristics of the RF channel, which is
`
`represented by the matrix H. 7 Due to signal fading effects on the RF channel, the
`
`7 The patentee chose the notation "H" to identify a mathematical representation of
`an RF channel. '450 at 3:53-66. However, the patentee also uses "H" in
`conjunction with various additional notations to provide additional specificity, but
`each refers to an RF channel. "Hest" is used to identify an RF "channel estimate
`matrix which is computed by a receiving mobile terminal." Id. at 8:52-56. "H(t)" is
`used to identify H "as a function of time," where "t" refers to the RF channel
`characteristics at a specific instant in time. Id. at 4:5-9. " Hup'' is used to identify a
`"reverse channel estimate matrix" that is "computed by a receiving mobile
`terminal," where the term "reverse" refers to an "uplink" RF channel (i.e., channel
`for signals transmitted from the receiving mobile terminal to the transmitting mobile
`terminal). Id. at 4:66-5:2. " H down" is used to identify a " forward channel estimate
`matrix" that is "computed by a transmitting mobile terminal," where the term
`"forward" refers to a "downlink" RF channel (i.e. , channel for signals transmitted
`from the transmitted mobile terminal to the receiving mobile terminal). Id . at 5:2-
`5:7.
`
`10
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`Cas 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1296 Page 17 of 63
`
`1 values in